Issue 73

L. Malíková et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 73 (2025) 131-138; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.73.09

anchor failure is sufficient enough to provide with crack direction orientation and future cone failure. Finite element numerical model was created to apply the basic idea of the maximum tangential stress criterion that allows to predict crack propagation direction. Generally, these angles through the entire parametric study varied between ca. 20 and 40°, which is in accordance with experimental observations. Moreover, it was found out that the increasing embedment length of the anchor as well as the increasing anchor’s outer radius are advantageous in terms of the circumferential crack propagation angle. In other words, the larger the mentioned parameters, the lower the angle corresponding to the maximum tangential stress. Thus, a flatter path of the cone crack improves the fracture resistance of the anchor/concrete system against failure. This should be taken into account together with other factors for design and/or assessment of such a kind of structures. Note that the same behaviour was observed independently on the choice of the critical radial distance where the tangential stress distribution was analysed.

D ATA AVAILABILITY

T T

he data used in this study is available at (ZENODO repository): 10.5281/zenodo.15083222.

A CKNOWLEDGMENT

his paper was created as part of the project No. CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004631 “Materials and technologies for sustainable development” within the Jan Amos Komensky Operational Program financed by the European Union and from the state budget of the Czech Republic. Financial support from the Czech Science Foundation (project No. 25-15755S) is also gratefully acknowledged.

R EFERENCES

[1] Askes, H., Livieri, P., Susmel, L., Taylor, D., Tovo, R. (2013). Intrinsic material length, theory of critical distances and gradient mechanics: Analogies and differences in processing lineara-elastic crack tip stress fields, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 36(1), pp. 39–55. DOI: 10.1111/J.1460-2695.2012.01687.X. [2] Bokor, B., Sharma, A., Hofmann, J. (2019). Experimental investigations on concrete cone failure of rectangular and non-rectangular anchor groups, Eng. Struct., 188, pp. 202–217. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.03.019. [3] Elfgren, L., Eligehausen, R., Rots, J.G. (2001). Anchor bolts in concrete structures: Summary of round robin tests and analysis arranged by RILEM TC 90-FMA “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete - Applications,” Mater. Struct. Constr., 34(8), pp. 451–457. DOI: 10.1007/BF02486492/METRICS. [4] Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., Silva, J.F.. (2006). Anchorage in concrete construction, p. 378. [5] Eligehausen, R., Sawade, G. (1989). A fracture mechanics based description of the pull-out behavior of headed studs embedded in concrete, Fract. Mech. Concr. Struct., pp. 281–299. [6] Erdogan, F., Sih, G.C. (1963). On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear, J. Basic Eng., 55(6), pp. 519–525. [7] Ferreira, M., Filho, M.P., Lima, N., Oliveira, M. (2021). Influence of the flexural and shear reinforcement in the concrete cone resistance of headed bars, Eng. Struct., 248, p. 113212. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2021.113212. [8] Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., Breen, J.E. (1995). Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete, Struct. J., 92(1), pp. 73–94. DOI: 10.14359/1533. [9] Henriques, J., Maria Raposo, J., Da Silva, L.S., Neves, L.C. (2013). Tensile resistance of steel-reinforced anchorages: Experimental evaluation, ACI Struct. J., 110(2), pp. 239–249. DOI: 10.14359/51684404. [10] Hlavi č ka, V., Lublóy, É. (2018). Concrete cone failure of bonded anchors in thermally damaged concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 171, pp. 588–597. DOI: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2018.03.148. [11] Karmokar, T., Mohyeddin, A., Lee, J. (2023). Predictive models for concrete cone capacity of cast-in headed anchors in geopolymer concrete, Eng. Struct., 285, p. 116025. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2023.116025. [12] Krenchel, H., Shah, S.P. (1985). Fracture analysis of the pullout test, Mater. Struct., 18(6), pp. 439–446. DOI: 10.1007/BF02498746/METRICS.

137